W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2016

(unknown charset) Re: Technical baseline clause revisited?

From: (unknown charset) Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:25:39 -0400 (EDT)
To: (unknown charset) David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
cc: (unknown charset) ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1609091420240.29293@server2.shellworld.net>
No disrespect to David here,  but I am not following what participation  has 
to  do with social programs?
Further if the legal umbrella here, the AODA  has no complaint component, 
how would an individual share that the structure does not provide 
Technology has changed much in 9 years.  Further how one seeks impacted 
individuals i dare say  would impact who you did or did not hear from at 
the time.
The suggestion that a body difference experience automatically translates 
to a social program component is...disturbing in the 21st century in my 

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, David MacDonald wrote:

> WCAG is a consensus document arrived at over 9 years, by diverse
> stakeholders including the disability community and industry ... at it's
> minimum, it requires one technology stack, including accessibility
> supported  affordable AT, taking into consideration various social programs
> such as the ADP program in Ontario to support the purchase of AT. In other
> words web sites don't have to work with free AT, just one set of affordable
> AT at the minimum.
> I sat in on all those sometimes painful discussions over those years, but
> we have a standard that did not receive one formal objection from any
> stakeholder, which is a minor miracle given the subject matter.
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
> wrote:
>> Hi again Alan and all,
>> One more important point here.
>> Whose real-world?  the real world is how you define it...just ask trump.
>> Seriously, suspending the assumption that you know anything about any
>> other person's world but your own must be the first line of compliance or
>> so I feel.  Otherwise the knee jerk tendency to assume  first and ask never
>> kicks in.
>> Speaking only for myself, I feel such is especially true if you experience
>> a challenge yourself..a shared label does not a shared experience make.
>> here in Ontario one critical part of how the law is applied requires a
>> company to position themselves regarding an accommodation request..in plain
>> English that means you ask what is needed and why.
>> From a section 508 standpoint, I dare say that means you say what must be
>> present for the door to open at the basic level?
>> Because  so many of you here are  in the policy business the individual
>> human might not factor into your daily calendar.  Never forget that you are
>> facilitating participation, not meeting guidelines, if that resonates.
>> just my two cents,
>> Kare
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, ALAN SMITH wrote:
>> Karen,
>>> I appreciate your insight into all of this.
>>> I’m challenged in supporting a client who must be accessible from a
>>> regulatory standpoint.
>>> In the real-world user find things don’t always match up with regulatory
>>> compliance guidelines.
>>> Best.
>>> Alan
>>> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>>> From: Karen Lewellen
Received on Friday, 9 September 2016 18:26:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 9 September 2016 18:26:17 UTC